Appeal No. 2004-0700
Application No. 09/531,671
features of these claims correspond to those previously
considered, and the appellant’s arguments with respect thereto
are unpersuasive for reasons analogous to those previously
explained.
In light of the foregoing, we hereby sustain the examiner’s
section 102 rejection of claims 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 25, 26 and
31-33 as being anticipated by Khandros.
The only other arguments advanced by the appellant on this
appeal concern the section 103 rejection of claims 27, 37 and 38
as being unpatentable over Khandros in view of Sato. As
explained by the examiner on pages 14 and 15 of the answer,1
these arguments are not relevant to the examiner’s proposed
combination of Khandros and Sato. Furthermore, we consider the
examiner to have established a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to this proposed combination. It is our ultimate
determination, therefore, that the examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the claims under
review which the appellant has failed to successfully rebut with
argument and/or evidence of nonobviousness. See In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
1 Significantly, the appellant has not filed a reply brief
in response to this answer and thus has not disagreed on the
record before us with the examiner’s explanation.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007